Conference terri::cars_uk

    
    I thought this would be the best place to put this article.
    
    Its from todays daily rag.
    
    ELECTRIC SHOCK FOR COMPANY CAR MEN.
    
    A plan to force 3.5 million company car drivers to go electric
    is being studied by the Government.
    
    The idea is for a new environment law under which the cars must
    be battery-electric, recharging overnight or diesel-electrics
    recharging automatically while on the road.
    
    The plan has been drawn up by the Adam Smith Institute - an
    economic thinl tank - which suggests it should introduced
    with five years notice.
    
    Dr Madsen Pirie, author of Green Machine, says : "The Government
    should encourage the switch because the average car, in 100 miles,
    emits something like 100lbs of carbon dioxide and 5lbs of carbon
    monoxide."
    
    Electric cars include : The Peugot 205 electric, now in production
    in France. It has a top speed of 55-60 mph and a range of 75 miles.
    At present it costs about 3000 pounds more then a petrol model.
    
    The American GM Impact, not yet in production is a 100mph coupe
    with a 120 mile range, likely to cost 20,000 pounds.
    
    The British-designed LA301, planned to be built in Worthing, Sussex,
    for sale in Los Angeles has an expected top speed of 65 mph with
    a 120 mile range. (LA, BTW is one of the most car populated cities
    in the world with something like 8 to 10 million on the road.)
    
    The Volkswagon Golf Elektro-Hybrid prototype has a 113 MPG diesel
    engine with an electric motor for speeds below 37 mph.
    
                 -----------------------------
    
    Food for thought I guess. The VW car is thhe most interesting. I
    have a magazine article about this which I will post sometime
    next week. VW are talking about mass production quite soon.
    
    Also FORD have developed a plastic engine which they are testing
    in a Fiesta. More details quite soon.
    
    Hope this is of some interest to some of you.
    
    Jeff.
     

>>            <<< Note 694.9 by PEKING::NAGLEJ "FUNKY COLD RIBENA" >>>

>>    should encourage the switch because the average car, in 100 miles,
>>    emits something like 100lbs of carbon dioxide and 5lbs of carbon
>>    monoxide."
    
    
    I can't believe this! where on earth does this come from?. 3 gallons of
    petrol doesn't weigh 100 lbs does it?, so how could it produce more
    than it's weight in wasteproducts??.
    
    
    Richard

    
    Ths should put the nail in the coffin of any government who tries to
    introduce it in the near future. Think what every piddly company car
    costing �20k will do for the economy!!!
    
    Mark

re .10,

..well, only about � of the weight of C0� (ie the carbon) needs to come from the
fuel, the rest came through the air filter :-) 

Jc

This is not as far fetched as it seems...

Assuming 2 H atoms per C atom, and assuming that petrol weighs the same as
water (its actually lighter), then 3 gallons of petrol weigh roughly 33 lbs, 
of which 6/7 is C (atomic weight 12), and 1/7 H (atomic weight 1). 

6/7 of 33 = 28lbs.

O has atomic weight 16, hence weight of CO2 is 33lbs * (12 + 32)/12 = 121 lbs.
As the article points out, some CO is produced as well as CO2 - so 100 lbs
seems reasonable!

Steve

    
    20k for an electric car is alot at the moment but remember that
    the cars will be overpriced inititially because of the very
    small demand.
    
    If the idea/concept and development continues then the prices
    will come down to todays prices (albeit high prices, tax etc).
    
    The VW for example could be introduced at a realistic price. Thats
    if they are mass produced and VW seem to have it sussed. Ideas are
    also being developed for the reduction of soot from diesel engines.
    
    VW have also revolutionised the diesel engine and manufacturers
    are starting to invest copious amounts of money into what could
    be the engine of the future.
    
    The devolopment of the diesel engine has not progressed as fast
    as the petrol engine but recently this has changed. The diesel
    engine has some real benefits.
    
    My last car was a Pug 309 diesel. It was fairly quick and it would
    do a ton easily AND it was economical.

    
    Jeff.

    If we all have electric cars, and have to re-charge them each evening,
    how much extra pollution will power stations produce?
    
    Mikef

� If we all have electric cars, and have to re-charge them each evening,
   
I don't have a garage.

Is it legal to drape an electric cable from my bedroom window across the public
footpath to recharge my car?

Is it sensible (some stray vagrant could use the electricity I'm paying for to 
heat his cardboard box).

No ... I'm sorry guys, this lunatic "idea" only works if everybody keeps their
car in a garage that is part of the house (and has electricity).

/. Ian .\

    I don't have a garage also, maybe I could install my hamsters wheel in
    the back of the car, then wire the wheel up up so that as he ran round,
    he could charge up the battery?  Would this produce too much Hamster
    pollution??
    
    Mikef
    

    Recharging overnight is likely to cause less pollution than burning the
    petrol would. An electric car could be designed to use regenerative
    braking, so would require less energy than a petrol car doing the same
    journey. Power stations also burn their fuel more efficiently than
    car engines. (anyway the pollution from power stations is sent high
    into the sky, so WE dont need to worry about it :-) ).
    
    You wouldn't even need to build more power stations, as most of the
    demand would be during off peak hours. Charging would be a problem if
    you had to park on the road though (unless there was a scheme for
    swapping batteries, rather like the way you change a propane gas
    cylinder when it runs out). May be the council would provide things
    like parking meters, which you could plug into and pay for the
    electricity consumed. A low power on-board diesel generator could also
    be a solution (though you wouldn't want it running all night !).
    
    Andrew

Have an electric motor powering the front (say) wheels.  Have a dynamo connected
via step-up gearing to (say) the back wheels.  The dynamo will produce more
current to recharge the battery than the motor uses, so the battery will never
go flat.

Scott ;-)

I live on one side of Basingstoke Road and the nearest legal parking is on the
other, so is it OK if I run a cable across the road to charge my electric car?
It would mean closing Basingstoke Road every night, but they're doing that 
anyway at the moment!

No, I vote for Scott's perpetual motion car.  The only problem is what to do 
with all the excess power while it's slowing down!

Jon

 

    maybe the excess power could be used to power the hamsters wheel, so
    that he could have a rest?
    
    Mikef

    Ok so we're talking about a recharge over night after a day's
    commuting. So how about the business trip or holiday trip?.
    
    70, 100, 120, miles range then a stop to re-charge, for how long? an hour,
    2,  4 ??
    
    How feasible are these ESPECIALLY for the business user?. These
    vehicles are town cars they havn't got the range for sustained long
    distance driving.
    
    Richard 
    

    Is the range the problem, or how long they are used for??
    
    Will it use the same amount of 'juice' for an hours journey of 3
    miles through London, as an hours journey of 30 or 60 miles in the
    country?

Re .-2

You would have to be careful to ensure the wheel had a speed limiter.  Otherwise
an emergency stop would produce hamster soup.

Jon

	Emissions -
	
	Petrol burns normally with air in the proportion of 1:14. So
	each gallon of petrol, weight about 7lbs, needs 98lbs of air
	and produces 105lbs of emissions. In 100 miles @33mpg thats
	315lbs of emissions. Most of this is water and I'll let the
	chemists explain the exact proportions but basically the 
	original statement sounds about right to me.

	Power Staions v Engines -

	Power Stations usually get about 40% efficiency of energy 
	conversion thanks to the fact that they can do things on a massive
	scale. Also because their efficiency is high the pollutants are
	low, and in any case they use less problematic fuels. Petrol
	car engines rarely beat 30% optimum efficiency. This is only
	achieved in full throttle conditions, in practice with small 
	throttle conditions and periods of idle it drops to some very
	much smaller amount maybe 15% in practice.

	Electric Company Cars -

	I like this idea a lot but doubt whether any government would
	go for it even if it were a vote catcher (The vast majority of
	voters don't have company cars) even in say 10 years time when
	conditions will be more amenable. Of course if this was to go
	through it would cut the cost of motoring somewhat but still.

	The world's supply of petrol is scheduled to run out in 2030
	and that's not as far off as it seems, so as time goes by plans
	like this will be taken a lot more seriously. The car manufacturers
	are already starting to pump resources in this direction.

	I think a hybrid car would be pretty good once adequately developed.
	Peugeots follow up to the Electric 205 is destined to be a hybrid
	probably in the 309 size.

	-John

	Sorry but a gallon of petrol weights nearer 10lbs than 7lb. Up
	the other figures in proportion.

	-John

    
    There are times when I think I live in a different world to some of
    our brethren.
    
    Have just got back from Reading-Bristol-Swansea-Liverpool-Warrington-
    Reading business trip in my company car. Much of it in foul weather,
    headlights, wipers, fans etc all going flat out. Don't give much hope
    for an electric car coping with that, in a journey time that doesn't
    exceed two working days (including meetings).
    
    Driving to Cannes next week for Decus & Decville. That would need a
    fair number of charge points en route (a new role for Peage?).
    
    I'd rather concentrate on trying to earn some revenue ...........

    I always thought DEC had more than it's share of rational people...now
    I'm not so sure.
    Some noters take objections to ridiculous lengths without putting
    alternatives in place. Perhaps a base issue needs restating:
    
    * The supply of crude oil is finite *
    This means when we've used it all up - we don't have any more. Period.
    Not getting our act together now means our descendents won't have
    access to this irreplaceable resource - petrol for transportation
    is probably the most wastefull use of Oil - and the won't be able
    to drive BMX/GTI/GTO etc. etc. extensions to their ego either.
    
    Notes spouting `...electric cars couldn't cope with...' or `...there'd
    be cables everywhere..' aren't contributing much. `How could electric
    cars...' seem more constructive.

*We* aren't the only ones offering suggestions without alternatives.

A report has been published which purports to suggest that business users 
should be forced/coerced to use only electric cars within 5 years.

Well with present technology that is no alternative. 

I live 30 miles from work: which means that present technology just gives me 
the range to reach the office and get home - though I'll probably crawl the 
last couple of miles.

Present technology doesn't permit me to recharge the batteries: I *cannot*
run a cable from the house to the nearest place I can park the car: either the
batteries must be removable (and light enough to carry) so I can recharge
them in the house overnight or they must be exchangeable. Currently they are 
far from being either...

Present range means that I could not do *any* business trips without a recharge.

Therefore an electric car is not a "reasonable fuel saving alternative" it is a
technically infeasable piece of garbage.

Come back when the range is 200 miles, the thing can cruise the motorways at a 
reasonable speed (not necesarily 70 mph) and can be fully refuelled in a couple
of minutes: then I'll agree that governmental arm twisting to persuade 
people to use them is a good idea.

Whilst you are whistling Dixie, think of a way to make them make a noise - say
60 - 70 dB at all times, or the accident rate in towns will sky rocket due to
stupid pedestrians who don't here them coming and walk into the street between
parked cars...

/. Ian .\

    Perhaps we'll all have to live nearer work, or work from home ?
    
    Rich. (just like in the 70's - 1870's that is.)

    re -2 ..lighten up.   There is no way 'electric' cars will be forced
    onto us until they have vastly improved the technology.  This much is
    obvious.  If money is invested into this technology (rather than
    obselete missile systems) then it will be a perfectly feasible option -
    haven't some major manufacturer just unveiled a prototype car with a
    large range?  Peugot maybe?  If we wear blinkers and don't even
    consider the options, we are gonna be in serious trouble.  The only
    alternative then will be a form of public transport.  Oil is running 
    out, and cannot be replaced.  This goes for anything we extract from
    the Earth.
    
    Mikef 

I think that the Sinclair C5 was a good step in the right direction. 
It overcomes one serious objection; because if it ran out of juice (usually
after 15 miles), you could always pedal home :-)

    Which brings us back to the hamster solution! ;-)
    
    Mikef

    yep there is an option recently unveiled (GM I think) but the
    batteries weigh a couple of hundredweight - still not useable.
    
    You suggest I lighten up: why? the government is being urged by a think
    tank it usually listens to to introduce tax incentives (read that as
    forcing the issue) to *make* company car drivers drive electric cars
    within 5 years. Well I do not believe that the technology will be
    viable within 5 years...
    
    The only viable option I've seen to date is the VW/Audi duplex
    approach - but it costs six grand on top of the basic vehicle and
    the batteries are so big and heavy you lose out on both payload and
    boot space.
    
    So ... if DEC will make a �30000 Audi an option to the 1.6L Cavalier as
    a free car, I'll consider it - but only if they compensate me for the
    extra six hundred quid or so the tax man will take off me...
    
    Yes it is coming, but so is Christmas, and Christmas will get here
    first.
    
    If they are to be usable as company cars then the following are needed:
    
    1) 200 mile range
    
    2) 70 mph cruising
    
    3) "instant" refuelling (interchangeable batteries)
    
    4) no tax penalty for having one (or a tax advantage)
    
    5) no price penalty for having one (or a price advantage).
    
    /. Ian .\

    re -1 
     5)  We are all going to have to think about the ultimate penalty for
    not doing anything.
    
    I really think that these are 'salad' days for having large and
    powefull cars, company or otherwise.  It can't last.  We either foul up
    the atmosphere or use up the oil, both the way we are going.  No matter
    how many criteria we place to make electric cars viable, the oil is
    going to run out.  Its a fact we have to face.
    
    BTW-No matter what you may think of the present Governmant, can you
    honestly see it forcing unusable electric cars onto the public within 5
    years?  Not even I can! The technology can be produced, it needs the
    resources and investement, and the incentive.
    
    Now if someone can just invent a time machine, preferably the model
    that runs on garbage...  

    
    Ian,
    
    Why no tax incentives for having them? 
    
    Providing they meet your other criteria what is wrong with incentives
    (rather than disincentives on petrol/diesel cars) to encourage people
    to switch over to them? 
    
    While they are overpriced, under-ranged, dangerously slow and badly
    unreliable they should be kept off the roads (except in cities
    perhaps), but IF they can be made a practical solution then why not
    encourage people to use a renewable energy source? Providing of course
    that no-one minds replacing all the oil and coal burning power stations
    with nuclear ones! :^)
    
    Mark
      

re .38:

I'm not sure I said that, or if I did I didn't mean to.

At the present moment they are going to be horribly expensive, and it makes 
sense to have a tax incentive (perhaps).

The scenario I am afraid of goes like this:

o 1995 ... Maggie wants to look Green (or Kinnock wants to look Green)

o They decide to increase the tax charge on company cars to 100% of value of
car a year (or say �10,000)

Of course the snag is that meanwhile the best the industry can offer me is a
glorified milk float...

ie, I don't mind a tax advantage for a company milk float (eg perhaps no
"company car tax") but I do object to a tax penalty on the present cars until
the new ones work.

	The precis in .9 clearly doesn't cover the whole intent of	
	these proposals or the logic behind them. Some writers in
	these columns also appear to be making wild assumptions
	as to what they really mean by assuming that they would be
	forced to drive electric cars if it came about - not true.

	The reasoning is that present 'company car' legislation tends
	to encourage consumption of expensive, polluting resources
	and indeed subsidises it. What it suggests is that a subsidy
	should be made available instead for those who choose to 
	persue a more environmentally sensible forms of transport.
	Similarly the removal of the subsidies from gas guzzlers would 
	almost certainly 'concentrate the mind' of those who still used 
	less efficient vehicles.

	Since there aren't any electric cars at present that would meet
	with a typical user profile requirement the effective result
	of such legislation would basically be to eliminate the company
	car, not to replace it with an electric golf cart. Whilst this
	may shock some, they haven't thought hard enough. The elimination
	of the captive, company car market would undoubtably result in
	the reduction in UK car prices by some 30% or so ie. the typical
	amount that they are hyped above the rest of europe's prices. The
	subsidy is nothing like this amount, indeed it's pretty small 
	nowadays.

	At the same time there would now be an incentive for manufacturers
	to take more efficient cars much more seriously since the subsidy
	situation has been reversed. Economically it has a lot going for
	it.

	Even the present UK government is keen to eliminate the 'company
	car' and is working on it budget by budget by increasing the tax.
	Other political persuasions would probably just put the steel toe
	capped boot in and have done with it.

	These proposals make so much economic and environmental sense
	that they ought to be adopted, but I wouldn't bank on it. The 
	Times leader column gives them the thumbs up so maybe some people
	out there ought to take them more seriously, appreciate the
	benefits to be gained and not adopt such a head in the sand 
	negative attitude about the whole thing.

	-John

    Well no-ones mentioned Methane cars yet (except after an Indian)
    but that would satisfy the `company' car requirements.
    Methane is quite easily produced from a number of sources.

I'm all for ecology, and conserving the planet's resources etc. - but give up 
my ego extension? NEVER!!! Think of the mass suffering that would be caused
world-wide? For example there are at least a dozen people in this notesfile 
alone, who would need major psychiatric counselling if they lost their kit car/
Renault 5 turbo/Land Rover/company car/camper. The cost of this treatment
defies description - medical expenses, lost time from work, family upheavals
etc. - I am sure that it far outweighs any small savings that a selfish minority
of "greenies" are prevailing upon us to make.

I think that the problem is being attacked from the wrong end. Why change
the design of cars; surely all that research Peugeot/VW/GM etc. are putting into
new cars, would be better spent refining (sic) the process of manufacture of 
petrol?

Surely you can manufacture octane; I'm sure that ICI petrol, sold in the north
of England, is a side-product of other chemical processes? (Some smart Alec's
going to tell me that the raw-product's comes from somewhere called "Abu-Dhabi"
or "Brent"; however I feel that this is a minor nit, and doesn't alter the
thread of my arguement).

If we can manufacture, then everybody will be happy:

o We can keep the "16V" and "Turbo intercooler" badges on our pride and joys
o By keeping up the CO2 output, we don't risk a regression from the awfully 
  fine weather we've been experiencing lately.
o The ecologists don't lose their conversation piece at dinner parties.

Steve :-)

    Re: -1
    
        Adolf H did this and SASOL (I believe) continue to do so.
         
    It is *very* expensive and probably requires more energy to create
    the petrol than is obtained by (inefficently) burning it.
    
    Petrol isn't a `side-product' of anything - it is produced by either
    fractional disillation or catylictic cracking both of which are
    designed to produce the stuff.

    
    Why don't companies offer a 'company motorbike' scheme? - I don't know
    of anywhere that does (other than courier companies). I believe someone
    approached the DEC scheme asking for a bike, and was told "no chance".
    
    Elaine

I used to work for a company where one of the company directors had a BMW (bike)
as his "company car" - he reckoned on being able to get to work 15 minutes 
faster than in a car...

/. Ian .\

Whoa!


I thought company cars were given where people needed them to get to customers?

This being the case, chances are

a) You'll one day give a customer a lift

b) You'll have to take some kit somewhere.


SO try putting a workstation, 19 inch screen and a customer on a bike!!



Greg

    > I thought company cars were given where people needed them to get
    > to customers?
    
    Then you thought wrong :-).  I don't know what the proportion is of
    primary business-use to non-business-use company cars, but there are a
    significant number of the latter.  There are different types of
    supplement.
    
    Jeff.

	I know someone who takes the money instead of the supplement, and uses 
	this to fund his bike.


	Heather

Company bikes are certainly an option in a few companies.  I believe you don't 
pay company car tax on a bike so it can by tax efficient to get a nice big BMW 
bike for riding round on at the weekend provided by the company and pay for a 
car yourself.

Re customer visits - would have thought these are done by only a minority of 
those with lease cars.  If you need to give a customer a list, get a sidecar! 

:-)
Jon

    
    I do a fair number of miles each year in my repmobile - 2000 miles in
    last 9 working days. In the last 2 years I have taken a customer in the
    car twice .........
    
    Even all the slides etc for presentations fit easily in a motorcycle
    top box, & it is so easy to park even in central London (for free).
    
    Perhaps I'll get my Norton F1 after all.

>    Perhaps I'll get my Norton F1 after all.


 	At �13,000 a throw you have to be a motorcycle enthusiast !

	Gordon

    
    Just a question.
    
    If you are a supplement holder but choose to take the money to
    fund your own car instead of a lease car, then how is this money
    paid to you ??
    
    Is it added to your salary and paid each month or do you get
    it in a lump sum ??
    
    Jeff.

re.53:

Added to your salary.

Dave.

	Yup, added to your salary, so you can pay tax and things on it.

	Heather

>	Yup, added to your salary, so you can pay tax and things on it.

But not use it towards the share purchase plan unfortunately.

Nigel.